Predator Research Facility Julie K Young PhD Sandusky Philadelphia Gainesville Hilo Logan Corvallis Fort Collins Starkville Bismarck ID: 460549
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "WS- NWRC’s" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
WS-NWRC’sPredator Research Facility
Julie K. Young, Ph.D.Slide2
Sandusky
Philadelphia
Gainesville
Hilo
Logan
Corvallis
Fort Collins
Starkville
Bismarck
WS National Wildlife Research CenterSlide3
Research Grade Scientists
Julie K. Young: Project Leader, Supervisory Research Wildlife BiologistStewart Breck & Eric
Gese
: Research Wildlife Biologists
Animal Care
Stacey
Brummer
:
Colony ManagerJeff Schultz
: Enrichment SpecialistErika Stephenson & Nate Floyd: Animal Care Technicians (Wildlife)Support StaffDavid Jolley: Wildlife Biologist
Mike Davis: Facilities ManagerDianne Arnold: Budget TechnicianStaffSlide4
NWRC Predator Research Project
NWRC’s Predator Research Facility houses the only captive coyote population used specifically for research. The staff applies their knowledge of carnivore behavior, ecology, space use, population dynamics, and evolution to answer questions that enable carnivores and humans to coexist.EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH STUDIESPredator Control Methods
Livestock protection dogs & wolves
PAPP as a coyote toxicantSocial learning & food tracking in coyotesPredator Ecology
Coyote-kit fox interactions
Polar bears & impacts of climate change
Cougar-coyote dynamics & mule deer recruitment
Urban Carnivores
Management of urban black bearsSpace use & population estimates of urban bobcatsUrban coyote behavior & human conflictsPredator Behavior, Endocrinology, and GeneticsSeasonal hormone changes in coyotesPhenotypic trait inheritance in coyotesCaptive behavior & post-release space use of rehabilitated black bear cubs
Temporal viability of predator DNA
EXPERTISE
Carnivore behavior
Predator impacts on livestock
Evaluation of nonlethal tools
Carnivores and human health & safety
Development of monitoring techniques
Human-carnivore conflicts
Predator-prey relationshipsPredator-predator interactions
Carnivore impacts to T&E speciesSlide5
Urban
EcologyBehavior & Physiology
ScienceSlide6
Urban
EcologyBehavior & Physiology
Control Methods
Management implicationsSlide7
Wild & urban landscapesFocus on livestock, T&E species, economically/socially valuable speciesPredator ecologySlide8
What is the best method to detect small carnivores (kit fox)Scat deposition, scent
station, spotlight, or trappingDetermined the probability of detection per methodCompared to known abundance (via telemetry)Best method: scat deposition surveysHighest detection probabilities & closest to real abundance Low cost, resilient to weather, low labor requirements, & pose no risk to the study animals
Second best: scent station
Monitoring carnivores
Gese
Slide9
Monitoring carnivores
Gese Is there a harvest index that can be used by wildlife agencies to monitor cougar populations236 cougars in 2 study areas over 17 yearsCompared known abundance & survival (via telemetry) vs. 8 harvest indices collected by UDWRCougar abundance related to cougars treed per day (r = 0.75)Annual female cougar survival related to % of harvest >6 years old (r = 0.55)Slide10
Population demographics Gese
Is sport hunting compensatory or additive236 cougars in 2 study areas in Utah over 17 yearsDetermined cause-specific mortalitySport hunting was partially compensatory in lightly hunted population (Oquirrh)Sport hunting was additive to natural mortality in heavily hunted cougar population (Monroe)Slide11
What are the real vs perceived threats to humans & to urban carnivoresStudies
Bobcats (Arlington, Texas)Coyotes (captive, Denver, Colorado, and national survey)Black bears (Aspen & Durango, Colorado)Urban carnivores Breck, Young, GeseSlide12
Wild, captive, & urban landscapes
Predator behavior, endocrinology, geneticsSlide13
Predator behavior Young
Do captive behaviors predict post-release fitnessCaptive behavioral assessment testsNovel object, startling response, OFT, focal samplesPost-release monitoringShort- & long-term activity patterns, habitat use, den selection, survival, fecunditySlide14
Predator endocrinology
Young What are hormonal and behavior affects of conspecific cues during pregnancy in coyotesMarked captive territories with odor cues Behavioral and hormone samplesRepeated first and second pregnancies (over 3 years)Dominance (females) & investigatory (males) behaviors consistentOdor cues increased fecal androgen metabolites (FAMs)
Pregnancy experience
decreased FAMs FAMs = litter sizeSlide15
What are common degradation rates of forensic DNA
Gave lamb and calf carcasses to predators (coyote, wolves, & cougars)Exposed to elements for 0, 8,12, 24,36, & 48 hoursField work completeLab work ongoingExpect to make recommendations for forensic DNA sampling
Predator
genetics
Piaggio
,
Gese
, YoungSlide16
Can DNA forensics improve predator identification of sage grouse nestsSampled 36 depredated eggs
Amplified mtDNADetected coyotes, skunk, mouse, cow, & human DNA on eggsIncreased detection rateProduced technique to identify predators of nests
Predator
genetics Piaggio
, YoungSlide17
Focus on species-specific nonlethal & lethal toolsImprove specificity, implementation guidelines, & humannessControl methodsSlide18
M44 selectivity Young
How selective are M44 devicesMonitor M44 use via camera trapsDetected 19 species visit M44s2.8:1 non-coyote:coyote visitation rateNo non-canid activationsSlide19
M44 selectivity Young
Can we reduce risk of activation by swift or kit foxesModify design to reduce ability of activationTested on captive coyotesIncreased height to 7”Tested on captive foxes & wild coyotesSlide20
Sterilization Gese
Does coyote sterilization reduce pronghorn fawn predationPronghorn fawn survival rates 2.4x higher in sterile territoriesSurviving fawns recruited into adult cohort (i.e., high winter survival)Prey base (small mammals & lagomorphs) not a factor in observed survivalSpace use, territory fidelity, pair-bonds, & survival similar Slide21
Sterilization Young & Gese
What chemical sterilization method works for coyotesTested Gonacon in males, Gonacon in females, & GnRH implants in malesCompared to vasectomized malesMeasured hormones and behaviorSlide22
Sterilization Young & Gese
What chemical sterilization method works for coyotesTested Gonacon in males, Gonacon in females, & GnRH implants in malesCompared to vasectomized malesMeasured hormones and behaviorBehavior is similar15 of 18 pairs had puppies!!!!Slide23
Fencing for Black-Footed Ferrets
Can exclusionary fencing increase kit survivalMeasure effectiveness of fence for excluding coyotes, boosting juvenile
survivalExplore
cost-benefits of fence as an alternative to captive breeding
Fencing
effective for excluding medium-sized carnivores
Kit
survival increased 22% or more
Fencing = $5,400 - $1,700 per kitSlide24
Fladry
How can fladry be more effectiveIdentify fladry designs
less likely to coil
Created 6 designsTested each design using 2 materialsR
ip-stop nylon & marine vinyl
Identified 2 best designs
Currently testing designs with captive coyotesSlide25
Fladry
How can
fladry
be more effectiveSlide26
Management implications
0Cost of control% Risk of depredation to livestock
0
100Slide27
Management implications
0Cost of control% Risk of depredation to livestock
0
100Slide28
Management implications
0Cost of control
% Risk of depredation to livestock
0
100Slide29
Management implications
0Cost of control
% Risk of depredation to livestock
0
100Slide30
Management implications
0Cost of control
% Risk of depredation to livestock
0
100Slide31
Management implications
0Cost of NONLETHAL control
% Risk of depredation to livestock
0
100Slide32
Thank you